prillalar | So say we all.

So say we all.

I've been watching Battlestar Galactica. The new series, that is. And, damn, but I love it. Not that that's news -- I've already said so. I think it's my favourite show right now. (Since FMA is over!)

I've been watching Atlantis, of course, and waiting for SG-1 to come back. And loving that too.

And I've been watching Farscape. (I'm just a bit into S3 so far -- please don't spoil me in comments, because I plan to watch it all.) Contrary to my expectations, I haven't been loving it so much. I wondered why for quite some time. Well, why besides the fact that I loathe John Crichton with the burning power of a thousand blazing suns.

Then one day, when I was watching them run around the ship, as they do every other episode, and trying to fix something that was hurting Moya, I found myself annoyed. "This is so soft!" I said to myself.

That's it. Farscape is soft SF. The living ship, the Mos Eisley cantina production design, the rather aimless wandering of the characters -- it's fuzzy, it's unfocused. The characters's emotions make me feel vaguely uncomfortable, like I'm the exchange student they invited over for Thanksgiving dinner and they're having a family fight in front of me.

They have no real plan, no real aim, beyond some vague intention to get home. But home is different for each of them and they don't know where to go anyhow, so they don't have a strong goal beyond survival. They have no real strength, so they can't fight their enemies -- they can only run away. And it seems like it's verging on silly a lot of the time. I guess I just find it tedious.

Battlestar Galactica is hard SF. It's very militarized. It's an ensemble show without a single primary character. It has shiny, shiny ships and pretty, pretty space battles. An enemy that scares me. A strong focus. Complicated relationships that weave in and out of the military and political structure. Katee Sackhoff as the coolest pilot ever. And a ship that doesn't scream when someone kicks it.

Stargate is certainly more like the Galactica model than the Farscape model. So was B5. And even DS9. (Firefly, of course, is nothing like any of them, but I don't think it's really SF -- it just takes place in space.)

I guess I just have to face up to the fact that I like to watch ships blow up more than I like to watch people yell at each other.

Plus frack just sounds cooler than frell.

And completely unrelated: it's Aragorn week at

multi_pass. Here's my effort.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Plus frack just sounds cooler than frell.

I might grant you the rest of it, but that there is heresy.

Actually, I love Farscape's messy, extended dysfunctional family, but I can certainly see how you'd have trouble connecting with it if you don't like Crichton. It's his show, his story, and so much of the impact hinges on whether or not you care about his pain. Although, come to think of it, I suppose you could watch the series rooting for Scorpius and just enjoy all the torture. It'd be different, but it might still be entertaining.

They have no real plan, no real aim, beyond some vague intention to get home. But home is different for each of them and they don't know where to go anyhow, so they don't have a strong goal beyond survival.

I think that's where I see it as being similar to Firefly. It's not really one unified story, it's just life, in space.

Battlestar Galactica, though - that's some good crack. I have the four latest episodes on my computer, and I'm planning a big viewing orgy. Mmm, Starbuck. *g*

Wow. You're the first person I've ever met who doesn't like John. I think if you don't like John then Farscape would be very difficult to enjoy. Things happen to other people on the show, but it really is all about John and his very personal journey.

BSG I love with the power of a thousand suns. It's actually the first show I've loved as much as I love Farscape. Though they are both very different types of SF, they share one thing in common. Both shows are quite dark. Stargate SG-1 is such a lighter show in comparison, that even when bad things happen on it I find it difficult to get to concerned. But I find I don't trust the BSG writers at all to not destroy me emotionally. And, umm, I guess I'm a masochist because I kinda like it :)

You know you need to hook up with Blakes 7, right?

While I agree on Galactica - because every single episode until now has blown me away - and see what your problem is with Farscape, I still love Farscape a whole lot. In the beginning, it annoyed me to no end. They kept mangling plots, it wasn't congruent with even the most basic of physics, and it never explained what had just happened.

But after S1, somehow, I started not to care anymore, suspended all disbelief. I can still rave endlessly about both versions of Stargate and that they *always* meet English speaking aliens, but I'm fine with the translator microbes. I don't know, maybe the difference really is that I love John and you don't. I love the complete wackiness of the show, the crazyness, the colours and the darkness. I don't mind that I can't slash John, and not even because the femmeslash makes up for it. *shrugs* I think you either love Farscape or not.

And your Starbuck icon - it's perfect.

I have the first three BSG episodes, and I need to watch them! The time, where does it go?

Wait a sec, I assumed Battlestar Galactica would be crap. You mean it's not? Okay, I've got to start watching it. It started showing here a couple of weeks ago.

Have never seen Farscape, but agree with you that for purely linguistic reasons, 'frell' is a bloody stupid curseword. That is what it's supposed to be, yes? They're supposed to shout 'frell' when they stub their toe? Haha.

They have no real plan, no real aim, beyond some vague intention to get home. But home is different for each of them and they don't know where to go anyhow, so they don't have a strong goal beyond survival. They have no real strength, so they can't fight their enemies -- they can only run away.

I think you might see this shifting somewhat if you continue to watch the show. For me, the lack of cohesion (and trust) and random movement patterns was a plus, making Farscape the anti-Trek. It can be very frustrating, if you as the viewer are becoming dis-enchanted with the very human (and inhuman) errors of the characters, but at least, in FS, the errors have reprocussions.

Battlestar Galactica is hard SF.

I've only seen the mini so far (waiting for January) so I'm not going to disagree so much as to ask what you use to define SF. (I understand the term itself is in flux, and that there is disagreement as to what makes up hard and soft sf, which is why I ask.)

For me, FS's ability to explore the ramifications of different social structures and the realities of alien physiologies makes it hard SF. Plus, you know, in space. The lack of continuity and the lack of indepth exploration of some of the cool things (like translator microbes) makes it less SF and more space opera.

I have to agree that if the main character makes you want to tear your hair out, it's hard to get really really enthusiastic about a show. (Hence, me and Buffy, although I never so much loathed Buffy as I did not care so much.)

Which brings me to another comparision - for me, I loved the concept of AtS - darkness attempting redemption by fighting other evil, both internal and external - far more than I did BtSV - forces of good vanquishing evil, with occasional trouble.

But, (imo) the *execution* of Buffy was generally superior to AtS.

Some of the ideas of FS were really neat, and I thought the execution was (overall) damn well done. I really like the *idea* of BSG. But I'm leaving myself open to deciding that I'm not so happy with the actual show.

And while I'm asking - do you read SF/F, and if so, what authors/novels of space/military SF?

- hg

Man, isn't BSG just fabulous? I haven't gotten to talk much about it with anybody, since it's only been airing in the UK, but I love what they're doing with the characters and the universe. I can't wait for the rest of it -- and for more people to see it so they'll start writing for it.

I do love Farscape quite a bit, but it's absolutely John Crichton's show, so if you don't like him or the universe, that's pretty much it. I totally agree that it gets annoying to have a ship that takes everything personally -- which probably also explains my deep-seated annoyance with Zhaan. She coddles the damn ship too much. *g*

I suppose you could watch the series rooting for Scorpius and just enjoy all the torture.

I won't deny there's been a little of that. *g*

I think that's where I see it as being similar to Firefly. It's not really one unified story, it's just life, in space.

True. FS seems much more reactive to me, though. On FF, they're looking for jobs, they're more or less in the situation they plan to be. But on FS, things seem to just happen to them and they respond.

Anyhow, this isn't meant to be "why Farscape sucks" but rather "why I don't enjoy Farscape as much as everybody else" so I won't go on about it. :)

It's quite usual for me to dislike the main character of a show I enjoy, but this thing with John is all out of proportion. It's really unfortunate.

And I agree with you about about the darkness of the shows -- that's part of what I like about both of them. And Stargate is quite lighter in tone. More like Trek in that way.

Personally, I am counting on the BSG writers to destroy me emotionally. :)

No one has ever said so before. Is it hard to get hold of?

It's weird -- I feel like Farscape has all the pieces to be a show that I really like. I *love* most of the characters. But the way they're put together just doesn't really do it for me, most of the time.

And, yeah, sometimes you've just got to let things slide so you can enjoy the show.

You really, really need to watch them.

In the beginning, the Powers That Be said unto themselves, Let us remake Battlestar Galactica for surely there are those who would enjoy it and make us a few bucks. And let us update the characters and make Starbuck a woman.

And lo! the fans were disturbed in mind and went about saying to one another, Why do they need to remake a show that, let's face it, sucked, even if we do have fond childhood memories of it? And a female Starbuck was considered an heresy and they set against this remake as with one mind.

In the fullness of time, the miniseries was completed and did air upon the SciFi channel and those fans who were in the USA did watch of it, just to see how bad it was.

But they were consumed by it and did post to LiveJournal expressing their love and admiration, most of all for Starbuck, who did kick ass mightily. And so the other fans, when they were able, did watch and were won over and all prayed that SciFi would pick up the series and all actors would return.

And so their prayers were answered.

You have *got* to watch this show.

*takes this charming opportunity to pimp

bsg2003chatter and

bsg2003fics*

Wheee! BSG!!!

I'm intrigued by your experience of Farscape. You share many opinions with P., who couldn't get into it for almost exactly the same reasons you mention: didn't like Crichton and the way the narrative privileges him, and didn't like that they were just running away all the time.

As another person said above, I respond positively to that because it's the anti-Trek, and also because I love the dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics. If I tilt my head to one side, I can kind of imagine what you mean about watching someone else's family fight, but it just never felt that way to me -- probably because I love the characters so passionately.

Sorry it's been such a bust. :/

Unfortunately, yes. There hasn't been a Region 1 DVD release, though since there has been a Region 2 that means there might be a bittorrent floating around somewhere.

The lack of focus is probably one reason that I've never really been able to get into Farscape (and the central romance squicks me out -- I dislike the person John is around Aeryn).

And I do dislike that they don't have a home, an anchor.

And frell is a pretty soft word -- it doesn't sound like a curseword, which tend more towards harsh edges. Curse words are words you say when you release tension and a good 'ck' is better than a soft 'el' for that. It's stronger, which is why heroes tend to have a 'k' or 't' sound somewhere in their names.

I have no idea who I was talking about with the 't' sound heroes -- I actually just meant 'k', I think.

I love both Farscape and BSG. I love them because they both have characters I love, and I'm all about the characters. I can only imagine how hard it is to enjoy Farscape when you don't like John Crichton, because not only is the narrative focused on him, but you're less likely to be distracted from the flaws of the show if the main character isn't working for you. And while I think Farscape remains one of the most well-done television shows ever, it was certainly not without its flaws.

Starbuck is awesome, isn't she? Though I'd have to say my favorite character at this point is Number Six. She's both horrifying and fascinating. And I like that Lee is allowed to be both a good guy and a real ass, and the audience is not told we must like him (which is why I do). I could be remembering wrong, but I seem to recall there was an undercurrent in the original show of, "YOU MUST LOVE APOLLO OR ELSE."

Really, there's not a featured character on the show yet that I don't enjoy. Even Baltar, whom I find rather repulsive as a personality, engages me because of that repulsion.

Yay, Denny Crane!

The things that annoy you about Farscape are exactly what I love about it. The dysfunctional family thing is what brings me to the show time and again, and I find myself loving it more the more I watch.

I love the complete wackiness of the show, the crazyness, the colours and the darkness.

They kept mangling plots, it wasn't congruent with even the most basic of physics,

But that's just the point isn't it? They're in another galaxy, why do the laws of physics necessarily have to apply? Why should things be congruent?

Heh. I totally forgot you're into BSG! Even though I've read it countless times - we'r finally getting it in Aus next year!

Everbody is amazed that I don't like Farscape. I watch it, but I can't be passionate about it in a positive way.

Their aimlessness and reactive ways are only part of it for me. Another is that I started to get annoyed with the structure of "crew gets involved in local situation, sometimes trying to help (particularly if John is involved), and leaves everything far worse than when they arrived." I know that it's meant to be the antithesis of the usual show in which the heroes come in and solve the problem, but this was every single time. I don't watch a show to see how the characters are going to screw up everyone around them this time. (I know that there are a few other shows that do this too, and that they have their devotees. I'm not one of them.) Moya is like a plague ship. If I were them, I would avoid other people at all costs. Then again, they're almost all sociopaths, so I guess they don't care.

I don't feel affection between the characters either. The yelling doesn't feel like banter yelling. We're told that they all care for each other but it never shows for me.

I'm thinking that "hard SF" and "soft SF" aren't the terms I should have used, but "hard" and "soft" are the words that define the difference between the shows for me.

I usually think of hard SF as being primarily about ideas and technology and soft SF as being about the people. But that's a pretty fuzzy definition.

I do read SF, though sometimes it's hard to know how to categorize things. Is Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon SF? I've read a good deal of Asimov, some Simak, a lot of Niven (obviously!), Greg Bear, John Barnes, David Brin, Connie Willis, and a whole bunch more I forget right now.

I would call Niven's work hard SF. When I read it, I love the ideas, the technology, the aliens he dreams up. The writing, though, can be pretty bad (though he's gotten a lot better) and the characterization weak.

I would call Connie Willis soft SF. While she still has cool ideas, the focus is much more on the people and their relationships. And I love her work. I don't think I dislike soft SF on principal. But one of the main things I dislike about Farscape is the softness, the lack of focus.

And I realise I haven't defined SF for you. But I don't think I can.

BSG is the most fabulous thing ever. And I think I'd like Moya more if she could talk.

I totally get how people can enjoy the show and I really wish I liked it more. I certainly was expecting to. I do plan to watch it all, because I like the characters (except for you-know-who) and I want to find out what happens to them.

So I wouldn't call it a bust, exactly. :)

You're right about all the Ks! Now I can't stop thinking about them. (Poor Mulder -- all K-less. Though I guess "Fox" probably counts.)

I could be remembering wrong, but I seem to recall there was an undercurrent in the original show of, "YOU MUST LOVE APOLLO OR ELSE."

You're not wrong. And if there's one person I loathe more than Crichton...

Actually, my nickname for Crichton is Apollo the Third, since his dad is Troy from Galactica 1980, who was little Boxy, Apollo's adopted son, all growed up. Really, given all that, how else could I have felt about John?

Thankfully, the current Apollo is perfectly likeable, probably *because* he's such an ass.

I know, I seem to be a freak about this. :) I ship Aeryn/D'Argo too.

Yeah, they were never terribly competent. And Crichton always thinks he knows best.

Moya is like a plague ship.

LOL! So true.

Scully is the 'k' sound in that relationship -- which fits. She's science, he's faith.

I'll be very curious to see what you think at the end of S3.

Out of curiosity, and not meant to start flames or anything, but: What is it you don't like about John?

FS drives me batshit (lost opportunities with Stark, continuity and coherence problems, the risky-yet-safe approach (especially with Chiana and queerness in general), but I love it all the same. I really liked John in S1 and didn't like the character he became in S2, although I would say that I was mostly sympathetic to him. (I also didn't like that Ben Browder just... stopped enunciating after a while. I was all, "Are you hittin' the bottle, dude?")

You have reminded me of my BSG love! I've been watching the new show, and I like its hardness (though I'm actually most fond of the little "living ship" Starbuck found -- many cool possibilities). Like others, I also love FS, but differently.

Because I was so little, I remember BSG as great, not cheesy - seeing the people sealed in their cells by the bug-aliens was a formative experience for my wee fannish self. And I remember pestering my parents to be allowed to stay up late enough to watch BSG 1980.

I remembered that, but I tend to associate Kent McCord with his character from seaQuest DSV, just because it's more recent and pervasive in my psyche.

I must admit, I was a bit thrown by your use of "hard" and "soft" sf in your original post. I consider both shows soft sf in that they focus on characters instead of ideas that end in -ology. I would say BSG is more military sf, though, while Farscape is more...anarchic sf, I suppose. And Farscape was far more organic, which it seems is what you meant by "soft sf," that the aesthetic is different. I like that, but I also like the hard edges of BSG, I like how they underline the gut-wrenching devastation of the situation: these are fugitives, the last remnants of a race that had colonized at least twelve planets, and now they number in the thousands, without even one planet left to them. Even if they find Earth, it won't do them any good unless they've destroyed the Cylons, and they haven't even discussed destroying the Cylons because that's a plan so completely beyond their means that the more battle-experienced among them have probably dismissed the thought before it even becomes conscious. The hopelessness of that, and the continuing to fight anyway, really gets me where I live.

I'm surprised no-one has brought up the obligatory Zhaan quote yet:

"Soft? yes. Weak? no."

*g*

heres_luck has posited that Farscape is actually a picaresque (http://www.livejournal.com/users/heres_luck/114153.html), in terms of format.

I'm looking forward to the new Battlestar Galactica series, because I liked the mini-series, and there isn't much new SF, hard or soft, on TV at the moment. It has the appeal of a grittier Babylon 5, or maybe a higher-budget Blake's 7, but I'm not familiar enough with the latter to really say. What worries me about BSG, though, is how they'll handle the social sciences, more than the physical ones... That whole speech about "making babies".

I'm hoping they'll invent uterine replicators. (But that's a Lois McMaster Bujold (http://www.dendarii.com) reference.)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

So say we all.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Space Operas

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Space Operas

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject